FiltersDone

Question type

Essay

Multiple Choice

Short Answer

True False

Matching

Exam 3: The Us Legal System

Show Answer

Share

---

All types

Filters

Study FlashcardsPractice ExamLearn

Question 1

Essay

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Yuna suffered a personal injury while operating her tractor at home in California. She filed suit in state court against the manufacturer, Company A. Company A is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Illinois. Yuna also sued the seller, Company B, which is incorporated in California with its principal place of business in California. Yuna and Company B informally agreed to settle out of court, but the agreement was subject to approval by Company B's insurer. Before a final agreement was reached regarding settlement with Company B, Company A filed a motion in state court to remove the case to federal court. Although Yuna opposed removal, the state court granted Company A's motion. After the case was removed to federal court, Yuna and Company B finalized their settlement agreement and Company B was dismissed from the lawsuit. The federal district court proceeded to hear the case and ruled in favor of Company A. Yuna appealed on the basis that diversity between the parties was lacking so the federal district court had no jurisdiction over the case. She claims that the case should be remanded to state court for a new trial. What should the appellate court rule regarding whether the state trial court properly granted the petition for removal and what will be the likely outcome on appeal?

Correct Answer

verified

Following the Caterpillar case discussed...

View Answer

Show Answer

Question 2

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Which of the following is true regarding state courts of appeal?

A) States only have an intermediate court of appeal if there is no state supreme court.
B) In states that do not have an intermediate court of appeal, appeals go to the federal court of appeals.
C) In states that do not have an intermediate court of appeal, there is no right of appeal to any court.
D) All states in this country have intermediate courts of appeal.
E) Not all states have intermediate courts of appeal; in those states, appeals go to the state court of last resort.

F) C) and D)
G) A) and C)

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 3

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Patty sued Raphael for hitting her car, alleging that Raphael was texting at the time when the accident happened. Patty did not present hard evidence of texting, such as phone records. The jury held Raphael was not liable for the accident because Patty had not proved Raphael was texting, and that in fact it was Patty who failed to yield to Raphael. Patty should:

The federal court system has exclusive jurisdiction over ________.

[Revenge] Tamra, a first year law student, slipped on a freshly mopped floor while walking to class. She bumped into Anton, another first year law student, breaking his glasses. He was very angry with Tamra and slashed all of her car tires causing damages of $1,500. Anton also decided to sue Tamra for negligence claiming damages of $300 for his broken glasses. He decided that he already knew all about the law and did not need a lawyer. Anton sued Tamra in state court. Tamra, in the same lawsuit, brought an action against Anton for slashing her tires. At the trial in state court, Tamra told the judge that a friend, Aimee, told Tamra that she saw Anton slash all of Tamra's tires. The judge disallowed Tamra's testimony on that issue. Aimee also came to court and testified about seeing Anton slashing all of Tamra's tires. The state court judge ruled in favor of Tamra awarding her $1,500 in damages. Anton said that he was not giving up and that he would seek double damages on appeal in federal court. Tamra and Anton live in different states when not attending school. After the trial, Tamra reported Anton's action of slashing her tires to the police, who said that they would proceed with a criminal action against Anton. Anton goes to see Alex, a recent graduate who had just passed the bar, and asked Alex to represent him in a federal court appeal. -Should the judge have disallowed Tamra's testimony about what Aimee told her about the tire?

For a court to be able to provide a ruling in the case, there must be an adverse relationship between the parties, the action must give rise to an actual legal dispute and the courts must have the ability to render the decision that will resolve the dispute and not be a hypothetical situation. This is known as ________.

Raul sued Juan over an employment dispute at Raul's company. Juan was accused of selling the company's secret recipe for their specialty desserts. Juan however won the lawsuit. Raul would like to appeal because he believes that the jury did not properly look at all of the exhibits he presented at the trial. Would a court hear this appeal?

Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court's power to hear certain kinds of cases.

Usually the issue of ripeness arises when one party claims that a case is moot.

Diego's company is looking to expand its business in the United States. His supervisor asks him what the company should consider from a legal perspective while evaluating which state to expand the business to. Which of the following should Diego consider?

[Puppy Woes] Ronaldo promised to sell Linda a Dalmatian puppy for $700 but backed out of the deal. Linda sued Ronaldo in state court for breach of contract and asked for a jury to hear the case. During jury selection, one juror, Mika, said that she did not think she could be fair to Linda because Linda did not appear to be a dog lover. Linda's lawyer asked that Mika not hear the case on the basis that she could not be fair, and the judge excused Mika. Linda also decided that another juror, Sandy, looked at her in a grumpy manner so, without a reason given, Linda's lawyer asked the judge to excuse that juror from serving. The judge did so. After the jury was chosen, Linda's lawyer made a statement to the jury, as did Ronaldo's lawyer. Linda's lawyer then called to the witness stand Jules, a friend of Linda, who heard the discussion held between Linda and Ronaldo regarding the purchase of the puppy. Jules testified under questioning by Linda's lawyer that she heard Linda say that she would pay $700 for the puppy and that she also heard Ronaldo say that he would sell the dog for that amount. Unfortunately for Linda, Jules also testified in response to questioning by Ronaldo's lawyer that Ronaldo distinctly told Linda that he would only sell the puppy to her if Linda came with cash for the puppy within seven days. Linda did not show up with the money for ten days and Ronaldo had already sold the dog to someone else. The judge ruled in favor of Ronaldo. -The statements made to the jury by the lawyers immediately after the jury was chosen are referred to as ________.

Morgan sued Rachel over a motor vehicle accident, but they settled the case prior to the trial for $1,000. The lawsuit is now ________.

Which of the following would fall under the state court's jurisdiction?

Rosalba, a resident of New Mexico, claims that Pet Food Company, Inc., put out some dog food that made her dog, Champ, sick. Champ is a prize-winning poodle. He survived the pet food fiasco only after traveling to a veterinarian in Florida specializing in poodles and only because he had two very expensive surgeries. Additionally, his ability to sire has been impaired, and Rosalba will earn no more breeding fees from Champ. Her damages are $100,000. Pet Food Company, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in New Mexico. Rosalba asks you whether she can sue in federal court. What would you tell her and why?

Billy witnessed a hit-and-run but is gravely ill with cancer. Xavier, who was injured in the accident, would like to preserve Billy's testimony for trial in case Billy dies before the trial date. What should Xavier do?

[Puppy Woes] Ronaldo promised to sell Linda a Dalmatian puppy for $700 but backed out of the deal. Linda sued Ronaldo in state court for breach of contract and asked for a jury to hear the case. During jury selection, one juror, Mika, said that she did not think she could be fair to Linda because Linda did not appear to be a dog lover. Linda's lawyer asked that Mika not hear the case on the basis that she could not be fair, and the judge excused Mika. Linda also decided that another juror, Sandy, looked at her in a grumpy manner so, without a reason given, Linda's lawyer asked the judge to excuse that juror from serving. The judge did so. After the jury was chosen, Linda's lawyer made a statement to the jury, as did Ronaldo's lawyer. Linda's lawyer then called to the witness stand Jules, a friend of Linda, who heard the discussion held between Linda and Ronaldo regarding the purchase of the puppy. Jules testified under questioning by Linda's lawyer that she heard Linda say that she would pay $700 for the puppy and that she also heard Ronaldo say that he would sell the dog for that amount. Unfortunately for Linda, Jules also testified in response to questioning by Ronaldo's lawyer that Ronaldo distinctly told Linda that he would only sell the puppy to her if Linda came with cash for the puppy within seven days. Linda did not show up with the money for ten days and Ronaldo had already sold the dog to someone else. The judge ruled in favor of Ronaldo. -After voir dire, which is the next logical progression in a typical lawsuit?

[Puppy Woes] Ronaldo promised to sell Linda a Dalmatian puppy for $700 but backed out of the deal. Linda sued Ronaldo in state court for breach of contract and asked for a jury to hear the case. During jury selection, one juror, Mika, said that she did not think she could be fair to Linda because Linda did not appear to be a dog lover. Linda's lawyer asked that Mika not hear the case on the basis that she could not be fair, and the judge excused Mika. Linda also decided that another juror, Sandy, looked at her in a grumpy manner so, without a reason given, Linda's lawyer asked the judge to excuse that juror from serving. The judge did so. After the jury was chosen, Linda's lawyer made a statement to the jury, as did Ronaldo's lawyer. Linda's lawyer then called to the witness stand Jules, a friend of Linda, who heard the discussion held between Linda and Ronaldo regarding the purchase of the puppy. Jules testified under questioning by Linda's lawyer that she heard Linda say that she would pay $700 for the puppy and that she also heard Ronaldo say that he would sell the dog for that amount. Unfortunately for Linda, Jules also testified in response to questioning by Ronaldo's lawyer that Ronaldo distinctly told Linda that he would only sell the puppy to her if Linda came with cash for the puppy within seven days. Linda did not show up with the money for ten days and Ronaldo had already sold the dog to someone else. The judge ruled in favor of Ronaldo. -When lawyers choose a jury, it is called ________.

If a defendant fails to respond to the plaintiff's complaint with an answer when the plaintiff's complaint alleges facts to support a response, the plaintiff could ask the court for a(n) ________.

Susan has lost her appeal in her state supreme court on a matter concerning a question of pure state law. She wishes to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Susan:

Cars R Us is a manufacturer of car parts looking to expand their business outside of their current state with suppliers in other states. As part of their contracts with new parts dealers, their attorney would insert a ________ clause that will specify the law that will be applied to resolve any disputes under the contract.